IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in approaching the court did not debar the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The demand for justice was compelling, and the court emphasized the importance of addressing the matter on its merits.

JUDGMENT :

SUVRA GHOSH, J.

1. The prayers of the petitioner, inter-alia, are as hereunder:

(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to determine and pay compensation in question to the petitioner in respect of the said land upon initiating a fresh proceeding in terms of the relevant provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) forthwith.

(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation in question on account of damages and/or occupational charges from 1st April, 1997 till the date of initiation of a fresh proceeding in terms of the relevant provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (Act 30 of 2013).

2. Facts which are admitted are enumerated herein-below:

Land of the petitioner measuring about 0.10 acres in R.S. plot no. 818 corresponding to L.R. plot no. 871 in mouza - Chachanda, J.L. No. 82, Police Station - Samsherganj, District - Murshidabad was requisitioned for construction of Farakka Barrage Project from Basudevpur to Ratanpur Part V, under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948) and notice under section 4 (1a) of the Act was issued on 31st May, 1979. Ad-hoc compensation of 80% of the estimated amount under section 8B of the Act of 1948 was paid to the petitioner on 2nd December, 1977. No award was declared during the lifetime of the Act. No notice under section 9 (3B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Possession of the land was taken over by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since notice under section 9 (3B) of the Act of 1894 was not issued, the notice under section 4 (1a) of the Act of 1948 lapsed. The land has already been utilised by the respondents. Therefore it is incumbent upon the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 upon issuance of notice under section 11 of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 569, State of West Bengal and Others vs. Ganesh Samanta, (2014) 4 WBLR (Cal.) 996 and State of West Bengal and Others vs. Aziman Bibi and Others, (2016) 15 SCC 710 in support of his contention.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted hat since no award was declared during the lifetime of the Act of 1948 and only ad-hoc compensation of 80% of the estimated amount was paid to the petitioner, the proceedings lapsed. No notice under section 9 (3B) was served upon the petitioners to revive the said acquisition. Since the acquisition proceedings was initiated under the Act of 1948, the 2013 Act is not applicable in this case and the petitioner is not entitled to compensation under the said Act. The petitioner can at best claim compensation under the 1948 Act.

5. Learned counsel has emphasised on the fact that the petitioner came before this Court after delay of about 40 years and woke up from slumber by filing an application under The Right to Information Act before the authority only after promulgation of the 2013 Act. Such delay not being properly explained, the writ petition should be dismissed on that score alone. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, 1995 AIR 1991, State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, State of West Bengal vs. Sabita Mondal, 2011 (3) CHN (Cal) 555, State of West Bengal vs. Soumendra Dey, 2003 (1) ILR (Cal.) 410, Union of India and Another vs. Subhash Chander Sehgal and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1059, State of